Search OregonLive.com

Sign in toOregonLive.com

Lawmakers consider bills to protect juveniles questioned by police

Updated on March 23, 2017 at 10:01 AMPosted on March 22, 2017 at 6:41 PM

The bills, introduced by two state representatives who are former law enforcement officers, would require police record their interrogations of juveniles who are suspects in person-to-person felony crimes, ensure those interviews don't include any "trickery or deceptiveness,'' and make sure a juvenile can consult with a lawyer before agreeing to speak to police. (The Oregonian file photo)

Oregon lawmakers Wednesday debated three bills that would add more safeguards for juveniles questioned by police - including outlawing "deceit'' or "trickery'' in interviews.

The bills, introduced by two state representatives who are former law enforcement officers, also would require police to record their interrogations of juveniles suspected in person-to-person felony crimes and make sure a juvenile can consult with a lawyer before agreeing to speak to police.

Advocates, including criminal defense lawyers, say the restrictions mirror best practices and help guard against false confessions.

Police and prosecutors in Oregon remain largely opposed, arguing the changes could hamstring officers and shouldn't be required by state law but decided by each police agency.

The co-sponsors -- Democratic state Reps. Carla Piluso, who spent 30 years in law enforcement including six years as Gresham police chief, and Chris Gorsek, a Portland police officer for seven years who now teaches criminal justice at Mt. Hood Community College -- said they worked to balance the civil rights of youths with the practical needs of police.

"It is time to re-evalute how law enforcement interacts with youth," Piluso said. "We need to acknowledge that youth - even those tried in adult court - are different from adults and need extra protections."

Gorsek said he was concerned about the continued use of what's called the Reid-type of police interrogations, when officers try to elicit confessions by isolating suspects for extended periods, telling them that police know they're guilty, lying about evidence that police don't actually have, which is legal, and trying to convince them it's in their best interests to confess.

"In my district, there have been young kids in the very recent past that have experienced things like this,'' said Gorsek, whose district represents Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale and Wood Village.

It's not enough for a parent to be present when officers are questioning a juvenile Gorsek and Piluso said. The bill would require a youth to consult with a lawyer either in person, by phone or video conference before a police interview. In Oregon, police now can pull a juvenile from a classroom and question the child in a school administrator's office.

They argued that officers must make sure young people understand the gravity of the situation before they waive their constitutional rights.

"I have yet to meet a young person who understands the legal significance, let alone the definition, of waiver," said Kevin Ellis, who works with Youth Rights Justice, representing juveniles, mostly in the Portland area.

Gorsek invited James L. Trainum, a retired Washington, D.C., homicide detective and author of "How the Police Generate False Confessions," to address the House Judiciary Committee. He also talked to chiefs and sheriffs recently at the state police training academy.

Youths under 18 have a false confession rate two to three times higher than adults, Trainum said.

That's because they're more easily influenced than adults, a psychologist from Oregon Health & Science University told lawmakers.

"As adolescents' actions are strongly motivated by reward/incentive or threat, even more than adults, they are more likely to engage in impulsive behaviors and poorer decision-making in immediate contexts of promised incentive or feeling threatened," said Kristen Mackiewicz Seghete, a licensed psychologist and an assistant professor in OHSU's psychiatry department.

Trainum said the Oregon bills don't go far enough. It's time that all interrogations be recorded, he said. The International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends a simplified version of the Miranda warning be given to juveniles, with a youth asked to explain back to the officer what right he or she is giving up. Both steps would ensure juveniles' basic rights are protected, and good confessions are admissible in court, he said.

"None of this is cutting edge, but it is the direction law enforcement is moving across the country, if not the world," Trainum said.

In Oregon, 15 people have been exonerated of crimes they were convicted of between 1986 and 2012, including three involving false confessions, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. The registry is a project of the Newkirk Center for Science & Society at University of California Irvine, the University of Michigan Law School and the Michigan State University College of Law.

Gail Meyer, lobbyist for the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said no state has passed a law that requires a lawyer be consulted before officers question a youth. She said she understands police concerns that it would put a big "pause" on an ongoing police investigation. But she urged lawmakers to at least consider what can be done to ensure juveniles understand the rights they may be giving up before they do so.

The bill that would require recording certain juvenile interrogations builds on a 2009 law that requires any adult suspect in a murder or Measure 11 crime be recorded when interrogated in a police facility, she said.

Michael Selvaggio, a lobbyist for the Oregon Coalition of Police and Sheriffs, criticized the measures as "very broad, one size fits all" solutions to circumstances that demand a case-by-case approach.

What if an officer is out at night with several teenagers investigating a theft, for example. "Does the officer need to secure an attorney before engaging each in questioning?" he asked.

Kurt Miller, a Marion County deputy district attorney speaking on behalf of the Oregon District Attorneys Association and a state police academy instructor, said he already teaches officers at the academy to make sure juveniles understand their Miranda rights and encourages new officers in the academy to record their interrogations.

"Let us do what we're already doing, and police our ourselves as regards to interrogation methods," Miller said.

He's concerned about the repercussions in court, for example, if an officer, for some reason, is unable to record a juvenile suspect's interview.

Gorsek asked why we should accept a youth's signature, waiving the right to speak to an attorney, when "we don't let them enter into contracts until they're 18?"

"But we do let them drive vehicles," Miller responded.

West Linn resident Kyle Anderson shared with lawmakers his experience years ago of being accused at age 15 of sexually abusing his stepmother's daughter. Pulled from school, he was interrogated by police in Deschutes County and ended up confessing to a crime he didn't commit because officers had urged him "tell us what we want to hear and you can go," he said.

He had asked to speak to his father but wasn't allowed to do so during the police questioning, his lawyer Valerie Wright said. He ultimately went to trial and was acquitted, largely because there was no corroborating evidence.

"When Kyle's case came to me, there was no record, no video or audio recording of what was supposedly his confession. It was very difficult for us to try to figure out how this had occurred,'' Wright said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon submitted written testimony supporting the bills. The Oregon Innocence Project submitted testimony, calling for a review of police interrogation practices for juveniles and adults.